Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Guardian, food intake in rich countries must be cut, especially meat intake, or it will be impossible to stay below 1.5C global warming.
Global food production emissions ‘would put Paris agreement out of reach’
Study calls for more focus on farming and food waste, behind a third of greenhouse gas production
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Fri 6 Nov 2020 06.00 AEDT…
While emissions from some other carbon-intensive sectors, such as energy generation, have been slowing as clean technology is more widely adopted, farming has received less attention from policymakers. But if emissions from food production continue on current trends, they will rise to a cumulative 1,356 gigatons by the end of the century, according to a study in the journal Science.
…
If emissions from food production are to be cut to safe levels, diets in rich countries are also likely to have to change. “These countries are primarily those that are middle or high income where dietary intake and consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is on average well above [health] recommendations,” said Clark, citing the UK, the US, Australia, Europe, Brazil and Argentina, and countries such as China where meat consumption is high and increasing.
Any such changes would benefit people’s health and help to solve the obesity crises stalking many rich societies. “Diets need to shift to contain less food in general, such that caloric intake is in line with healthier quantities, and less meat, dairy and eggs, such that consumption of these foods is in line with dietary recommendations,” said Clark.
…
The paper does not specify the policy remedies likely to be required, but there are increasing calls from campaigners and health professionals for reform. Earlier this week, health professionals in the UK called for a tax on meat to help tackle the climate crisis and improve health.
Clark told the Guardian: “Taxes might be part of the solution, but they will not be the only solution. If food taxes to reduce emissions are implemented, we need to make sure they are not regressive and do not have a large negative impact on the people least able to afford the tax.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/05/global-food-production-emissions-would-put-paris-agreement-out-of-reach
Of all the interventions climate advocates promote, their plans to interfere with food production are the most terrifying.
If history teaches us anything, that lesson is food abundance is fragile; Venezuela, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China; history has given us a long list of examples, of what happens when governments get in the way of food production.
“… well above [health] recommendations”
In the USA, as the health recommendations {Note: in some cases these were forced on people} took hold over the last 50 years, the problem of obesity increased. Search ‘Images’ for – fat people –.
Food waste in many instances has been reduced in the production and storage systems – it is just good business. In homes, schools, and similar situations, waste is a costly issue.
Then there is the problem of damaged fruit. Search ‘Images” with this string – Apples on the ground under trees
A tax on meat: Meat is already expensive.
What is needed for health is a tax on inactivity. Watching television, playing video games, and talking on phones are not health activities.
Steak night tonight! Nice bottle of red wine to go with it.
Yes, tax it heavily so Dems lose faster in Congress and the WH and in states. Be bold and do it now, don’t wait.
The Mega Millions lottery jackpot includes a V8 truck, two guns, and a steak dinner. Second tier winners get carbon taxes paid for a month and a year’s supply of plastic items.
Farmers can adapt or join the coal miners at the gulag camps out in the districts.
They sure are dumb to attack the very people who, if they wanted to, could all destroy their crops in protest.
Geez if eating meat is banned, even Hannibal Lecter will have to get counselling.
(But I believe he does also enjoy fava beans, and a nice chianti)
The foods we throw out most include salad, fruit, vegetables and bread.
Modern vegetarian diets in much of the Northern hemisphere are not possible for much of the year without cheap oil to transport the food to the cities from rural areas and more often from warmer climate zones, even growing tomatoes out of season requires cheap energy sources to do it at scale.
It’s pushing crap like this that will get people to think more realistically about CC. Messing with our energy is bad but telling us what to eat is over the line. What happened to the climate when herds of wild animals roamed the earth before man decided to eat and then raise them?
Clark told the Guardian: “Taxes might be part of the solution, but they will not be the only solution. If food taxes to reduce emissions are implemented, we need to make sure they are not regressive and do not have a large negative impact on the people least able to afford the tax.”
How do you tax food and make sure that it doesn’t have a large negative impact on poor people? Require you to provide proof of poverty at the grocery checkout in order to get an exemption?
Many years ago I conceived a story about a couple going out for a steak dinner. They had to have all sorts of medical exams and apply several months in advance for a state-granted license, limited to once per year max, for the dinner, and had to present the license for admission to the restaurant.
I didn’t think it could actually happen. Should have known better.
Well….My take on all of this is…..’hold on….gotta go….the burgers are ready to come off the grill….’
Let them eat cannabis cake.
I have a better idea…..tax “newspapers”.
Taxing meat will have zero impact. The tax would have to be gigantic to have any significant effect. People like to eat meat. It’s good for them. Humans have evolved to desire it.
The anti-smoking movement is a good example of what is possible. Up to a point taxes work to reduce smoking, but when the tax gets too high people just give up and buy their smokes from the black market. They want to smoke tobacco. (Same of course applies with marijuana market dynamics.)
Consequently all that will happen if meat taxes are high is to encourage a black market. And perhaps people will eat all the zoo animals, like they did in Venezuela in 2017.
So they want all food animals to be destroyed. No one is going to pay to feed them so the whole herds will have to be destroyed. You can’t just let them go feral. It would defeat the purpose of allowing them. Just got to get rid of these species except maybe in a zoo.
That is how ridiculous all of this is.
This is Bull, but the part you eat.
It never was about climate though was it, that’s rhetorical in case anyone’s wondering.
I wonder when more actual scientists will start to rebel against the trashing of their profession in the name of politicking…waiting.
Meat and fish are necessary for optimal intellectual performance. Eg.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence
I don’t think that side-effect of their desired goal is unintentional.
The take away from this story is. Don’t pay any attention to the Guardian. Do not read the Guardian and certainly don’t click on articles on line from the Guardian, because that provides them with income they do not deserve.
If you do as I suggest, you will be saving from extinction all those much loved and delicious animals we like to eat. The Greens want to destroy all farm animals , do they have a problem with life do you think?